• HELP US - Become a Patron - Fat Jockey is a horse racing community focused on all the big races in the UK and Ireland. We don't charge users but if you have found the site useful then any support towards the running costs is appreciated ... a small donation each month would be a huge contribution. Become a Patron!

General Chat

Quevega said:
That would be the rose tinted outcome :LOL:
Click to expand...
Yeah after reading your post I suppose a much more appealing way for them to make more profit from racing would be to just ban people quicker who show any signs that they know what they're doing 😂
 
Istabraq said:
I think that’s about as big a win as racing could have hoped for.
And hitting the firms who profit from crackhead wheel spinners should have happened long ago…
Click to expand...
Agree Ista

Shows what Racing can achieve when united in pro active petitioning……rarely seen, but very good to see

Many Trainers stepped up publically, yet where were the Racecourses representation apart from Crudace?……….no vested interest as they didn’t think their Media Rights payments would be affected?

Also where was the Greyhound Racings petitioning?…….they get streaming payments and voluntary levy payments, so we’re at risk the same as Racing……why wasn’t Racing joined up with its poor relation Greyhound Racing?

The good news for Racing is that next years increase in online machine duty will not IMO result in bookmakers reducing sponsorship of Horse Racing or impacting Horse racing margins as all they need to do is tweak the margin algorithm in the machine game and this will pay for the increased duty. The downside for the machine player is less wins and less bonuses etc……..which isn’t maybe a bad thing as some players may as a result, leave the product alone?

The thing that may positively affect Horse Racing is the general duty increase online from 2027 for other sports betting, apart from Horse Racing, which will include Football.

Margins from Football are in general twice that of Horse Racing, but with the 10% inc in duty, then this may IMO bring the two products in line with each other from 2027 online and make the Horse Racing product able to compete with Football. It may make the bookmakers promote the Horse Racing product more than they do now, as so much of their promotion mechanics at the moment goes towards Football, because of its higher margins and cheaper product cost. Football will though not incur any media rights payments as Racing does, but at least it won’t continue to have a margin/duty benefit against Racing.

When the dust settles from what was a cracking petitioning result for Racing against the Government, then the issues Racing face around funding and governance structure will remain, so expect to see lots more publicity when the new BHA boss pitches his plan for Racing as I expect not all with their noses in the trough will be happy…….
 
Quevega said:
Gambling Commission needs to step up now and introduce some rules and regulations that mean bookmakers must allow punters to play to a reasonable level (minimum lay risk for every punter/account), and or have a minimum over round in any given market.

They fucking won't though will they ?

Whilst this news today looks like a win for racing (is a little bit) but the increase in taxes on other bookmaker income streams mean they will likely look to maximise profits elsewhere.

Before this announcement, and in order to maximise profit they have consistently put effort into restricting sports betting punters whilst simultaneously reducing offers and incentives including margins in betting markets (prices).
Click to expand...
The GC doesn’t give a fig about bookmakers refusing bets, in fact it only focuses on acceptance and whether the customer can afford the bet

It also doesn’t give a fig about over rounds either as their view would be the customer can decide whether they want the bet at the price offered or not

What they will be doing though is using increased funding for their department for finding, sanctioning and restricting Black Market operators…….which media report as a growth area of betting……and they will do this very publically, letting us all know when they find, restrict or fine a Black Market operator……I suspect it will be restricting access, as most don’t operate in the Uk?

It’s so ironic that it’s due to the over zealous activity of the GC that has created the growth in the Black Market……….which they now accept is growing…….because they expect bookmakers to ask all the invasive financial questions, that they say they do not do but fine the #### out of them if they don’t! , that customers in their droves have sort other betting havens

Rather than create the problem, hang the problem operators showing how good a job you are doing, why not just work with the current highly regulated operators that pay significant sums to the government, racing and GC?……..unfortunately though that option has left the dock and we are headed down the path where the GC is making a job for itself and that job is getting bigger by the day !
 
Wayward Lad said:
Agree Ista

Shows what Racing can achieve when united in pro active petitioning……rarely seen, but very good to see

Many Trainers stepped up publically, yet where were the Racecourses representation apart from Crudace?……….no vested interest as they didn’t think their Media Rights payments would be affected?

Also where was the Greyhound Racings petitioning?…….they get streaming payments and voluntary levy payments, so we’re at risk the same as Racing……why wasn’t Racing joined up with its poor relation Greyhound Racing?

The good news for Racing is that next years increase in online machine duty will not IMO result in bookmakers reducing sponsorship of Horse Racing or impacting Horse racing margins as all they need to do is tweak the margin algorithm in the machine game and this will pay for the increased duty. The downside for the machine player is less wins and less bonuses etc……..which isn’t maybe a bad thing as some players may as a result, leave the product alone?

The thing that may positively affect Horse Racing is the general duty increase online from 2027 for other sports betting, apart from Horse Racing, which will include Football.

Margins from Football are in general twice that of Horse Racing, but with the 10% inc in duty, then this may IMO bring the two products in line with each other from 2027 online and make the Horse Racing product able to compete with Football. It may make the bookmakers promote the Horse Racing product more than they do now, as so much of their promotion mechanics at the moment goes towards Football, because of its higher margins and cheaper product cost. Football will though not incur any media rights payments as Racing does, but at least it won’t continue to have a margin/duty benefit against Racing.

When the dust settles from what was a cracking petitioning result for Racing against the Government, then the issues Racing face around funding and governance structure will remain, so expect to see lots more publicity when the new BHA boss pitches his plan for Racing as I expect not all with their noses in the trough will be happy…….
Click to expand...

Loading…

www.racingpost.com

OBR thinks that it'll go the way I feared it would. (More restrictions and less margins (wanky prices) in favour of the consumer, no incentives and bonuses etc)

However, I can see the potential for it being a positive, it will depend on how the bookmakers want to tackle the issue.

Do they want to increase turnover on the lower taxed product ?? - You'd think yes. And this should help drive competition on this product between rival bookmakers (you'd think)

But as has been the case for years now - it's the profit (without risk) that will drive the effort more than the turnover, although they are obviously linked heavily.

I think if the Gambling Commission were any good they would see the need for some regulating on the bookmakers that would help both party's in the long term as IMO.

The bookmakers have had a policy for a while now where they clearly felt that it didn't matter if they were catching smaller fish in their net, as this was a small price to pay for the overall goal.

If the regulator made efforts to protect the smaller fish (minimum liability limits) I actually think these smaller fish would be profitable for bookmakers long term anyhow. And they could also make an effort to allow some of the bigger fish to play, within reason.

There must be many punters that will lose over the long term (at different rates) that have started betting less or packed it in altogether due to being restricted. There simply has to be because more than half the accounts that are restricted are not profitable accounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wayward Lad
Blog below on account restrictions, how, why, and the numbers etc.

Loading…

smartbettingclub.com
 

Loading…

www.racingpost.com

Bookmakers already coming out blurting about pulling sponsorships and promotion of UK racing.
They must feel that they were doing this previously out of charity. 🤷‍♂️
So much for thinking they might want to up the turnover on our sport. 😞
They look like they've decided to hold horseracing hostage.
 
Quevega said:

Loading…

www.racingpost.com

Bookmakers already coming out blurting about pulling sponsorships and promotion of UK racing.
They must feel that they were doing this previously out of charity. 🤷‍♂️
So much for thinking they might want to up the turnover on our sport. 😞
They look like they've decided to hold horseracing hostage.
Click to expand...

You think they care about anything other than their profits?

I imagine they spend the most money supporting horse racing, which is why they are targeting that.
 
Quevega said:

Loading…

www.racingpost.com

OBR thinks that it'll go the way I feared it would. (More restrictions and less margins (wanky prices) in favour of the consumer, no incentives and bonuses etc)

However, I can see the potential for it being a positive, it will depend on how the bookmakers want to tackle the issue.

Do they want to increase turnover on the lower taxed product ?? - You'd think yes. And this should help drive competition on this product between rival bookmakers (you'd think)

But as has been the case for years now - it's the profit (without risk) that will drive the effort more than the turnover, although they are obviously linked heavily.

I think if the Gambling Commission were any good they would see the need for some regulating on the bookmakers that would help both party's in the long term as IMO.

The bookmakers have had a policy for a while now where they clearly felt that it didn't matter if they were catching smaller fish in their net, as this was a small price to pay for the overall goal.

If the regulator made efforts to protect the smaller fish (minimum liability limits) I actually think these smaller fish would be profitable for bookmakers long term anyhow. And they could also make an effort to allow some of the bigger fish to play, within reason.

There must be many punters that will lose over the long term (at different rates) that have started betting less or packed it in altogether due to being restricted. There simply has to be because more than half the accounts that are restricted are not profitable accounts.
Click to expand...
I have just read a RP article that quotes Flutter and Evoke…… who state that as a result of the duty increases on products apart from Horse Racing, that Marketing and Sponsorship of Horse Racing will be cut……WTF!

Why not Marketing and Sponsorship of products like Football and Online Slots that will generate the additional duty to be paid???

Sounds like a childish/knee jerk reaction and maybe an ‘opportunity’ for these Companies to get out of current deals……blame it on the Government blah blah

Even one local bookie has said he is cutting his Horse Racing sponsorship of his local track as a result

This reaction in cutting support for Horse Racing was mooted to be the outcome IF the Horse Racing product duty was increased OR if Machines duty in betting shops was increased…….. neither has happened, so WTF!

Lets hope that when the dust settles that clearer unemotional minds think again and realise that the Horse Racing product now is comparable in margin/duty cost to the online Football product, so worth supporting it 😀
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quevega
Quevega said:

Loading…

www.racingpost.com

OBR thinks that it'll go the way I feared it would. (More restrictions and less margins (wanky prices) in favour of the consumer, no incentives and bonuses etc)

However, I can see the potential for it being a positive, it will depend on how the bookmakers want to tackle the issue.

Do they want to increase turnover on the lower taxed product ?? - You'd think yes. And this should help drive competition on this product between rival bookmakers (you'd think)

But as has been the case for years now - it's the profit (without risk) that will drive the effort more than the turnover, although they are obviously linked heavily.

I think if the Gambling Commission were any good they would see the need for some regulating on the bookmakers that would help both party's in the long term as IMO.

The bookmakers have had a policy for a while now where they clearly felt that it didn't matter if they were catching smaller fish in their net, as this was a small price to pay for the overall goal.

If the regulator made efforts to protect the smaller fish (minimum liability limits) I actually think these smaller fish would be profitable for bookmakers long term anyhow. And they could also make an effort to allow some of the bigger fish to play, within reason.

There must be many punters that will lose over the long term (at different rates) that have started betting less or packed it in altogether due to being restricted. There simply has to be because more than half the accounts that are restricted are not profitable accounts.
Click to expand...
I fear the GC will now just focus most of its resources (increased) on the Black Market

Also that they are not in the business of giving a flying #### about the business they regulates health and future prosperity

I think you are right that they should as it benefits all……but if they did then their focus would be on ‘prevention’ rather than their current policy of ‘punish’……and with the Black Market growing then this will change slightly to become ‘restrict/stop’ and they will use these, as an when they happen, to show Government what a great job they are doing to justify their role and when putting their hands out for even more money😡
 
Quevega said:
Blog below on account restrictions, how, why, and the numbers etc.

Loading…

smartbettingclub.com
Click to expand...
Interesting read and very worrying that some firms like Flutter have benchmarks they use to highlight potentially unprofitable customers BEFORE they become unprofitable customers ! 😳

So I could be losing to Flutter and they close my account because “Computer Says No”…….and then hide behind whatever T&C’s of their betting accounts suits them with no transparency around why.

Something does need to change and maybe the GC sometime in the future may focus on the “Fair and Open” part of the Gambling Act
 
Reading the articles on RP and X it seems to me the bookmakers are admitting their sponsorship is not aimed at racing punters, but looking for that casino business...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quevega
Wayward Lad said:
I have just read a RP article that quotes Flutter and Evoke…… who state that as a result of the duty increases on products apart from Horse Racing, that Marketing and Sponsorship of Horse Racing will be cut……WTF!

Why not Marketing and Sponsorship of products like Football and Online Slots that will generate the additional duty to be paid???

Sounds like a childish/knee jerk reaction and maybe an ‘opportunity’ for these Companies to get out of current deals……blame it on the Government blah blah

Even one local bookie has said he is cutting his Horse Racing sponsorship of his local track as a result

This reaction in cutting support for Horse Racing was mooted to be the outcome IF the Horse Racing product duty was increased OR if Machines duty in betting shops was increased…….. neither has happened, so WTF!

Lets hope that when the dust settles that clearer unemotional minds think again and realise that the Horse Racing product now is comparable in margin/duty cost to the online Football product, so worth supporting it 😀
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what my hostage comment meant.
Their first reaction is to shout about a reduction in promotion and sponsorship to the one product "unaffected" in the budget !!

Racing being used as a human shield.
 
Runragged said:
Reading the articles on RP and X it seems to me the bookmakers are admitting their sponsorship is not aimed at racing punters, but looking for that casino business...
Click to expand...
Very possibly,

So racing is a loss leader.
Paying the price for big business greed and the need for profit as much and as quickly as possible.

They're like a bunch of fucking pedo's running a sweet shop, with a room at the back.

Or as Tommy Robinson would say "a kebab shop".
Obviously in America this would be a Pizza shop.
Fucking loonies the lot of em !
 
The government should develop their own pool for betting on horseracing and take all the profit and not just tax on it.
Use the money generated to fund horseracing.
They'd soon be closing the half arsed courses that cater for less than a 1000 attendees and less than 30 horse running on most weekdays.
Thus creating more competitive racing and a better product that's available when people can watch and bet on it.

The blokes that hang around bookies on weekdays with plastic carrier bags and have twitches and weird mannerisms can find something else to do.

Ban all online betting on horseracing except through the pool, and on course bookmakers.
That'd sort them out.
Bunch of greedy corporations, ran by weird little plastic women mostly.
 
It's been a loss leader for ages - and there is no incentive for the bookies to change their view/use of the racing product because its decaying itself. Fundamentally you can blame the bookies for the state of racing if you want but the only thing that will change their attitude is if the interest in the actual sport is there.
 
thorne365 said:
It's been a loss leader for ages - and there is no incentive for the bookies to change their view/use of the racing product because its decaying itself. Fundamentally you can blame the bookies for the state of racing if you want but the only thing that will change their attitude is if the interest in the actual sport is there.
Click to expand...
Yep, I agree.
The BHA and other associations needs to remove the bookies member from their mouth, and their finger out of their own arse.
 
Quevega said:
Gambling Commission needs to step up now and introduce some rules and regulations that mean bookmakers must allow punters to play to a reasonable level (minimum lay risk for every punter/account), and or have a minimum over round in any given market.

They fucking won't though will they ?

Whilst this news today looks like a win for racing (is a little bit) but the increase in taxes on other bookmaker income streams mean they will likely look to maximise profits elsewhere.

Before this announcement, and in order to maximise profit they have consistently put effort into restricting sports betting punters whilst simultaneously reducing offers and incentives including margins in betting markets (prices).
Click to expand...
I've thought for a long time there are some very unhealthy relationships between the regulator and government/senior civil servants, bookmakers aren't allowed to behave this way in other countries, the terms of their licence don't permit heavy restrictions/closures, so it baffles me how things are how they are in the UK and the only conclusion is it's deliberate/collusion.
I think one of your later comments stated bookies are now threatening sponsorship removal, a predictable development from an industry who have been in charge for years.
Bookmaking has changed, there is zero appetite for risk and horse racing to them is a risk, they would be very happy if racing disappeared and the only customers they had were crackhead casino players and football accas, there are endless reports and stats out there but the sad reality is punters who have been restricted/closed haven't gone away or stopped punting, they're simply using outlets that facilitate their business and that's the black market operators.
I hate where we are and there's no reverse button and whatever figures get put out there on black market turnover don't believe them, the real numbers are a hell of alot bigger but are dumbed down to avoid attention....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom